Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 119 posts

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#61

Post by danpalmer »

bastawhiz wrote: post #56
staticassertion wrote: post #50

Do people really trust Redis for something like this? I feel like it's sort of pointless to pair Redis with S3 like this, and it'd be better to see benchmarks with metadata stores that can provide actual guarantees for durability/availability. Unfortunately, the benchmarks use Redis. Why would I care about distributed storage on a system like S3, which is all about consistency/durability/availability guarantees, just…

Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to. If you're running Redis right, it's very reliable. Not S3 reliable, though. But if you need S3 reliable, you would turn to something else. I expect that most folks looking at this are doing it because it means: 1. Effectively unbounded storage 2. It's fast 3. It's pretty darn cheap 4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesy…

Redis isn't durable unless you drastically reduce the performance.

Filesystems are pretty much by definition durable.

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#62

Post by ifoxhz »

tuhgdetzhh wrote: post #54

If tested various Posix FS projects over the years and everyone has their shortcomings in one way or the other. Although the maintainers of these projects disagree, I mostly consider them as a workaround for smaller projects. For big data (PB range) and critical production workloads I recommend to bite the bullet and make your software nativley S3 compatible without going over a POSIX mounted S3 proxy.

I think so.

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#63

Post by doctorpangloss »

bastawhiz wrote: post #56
staticassertion wrote: post #50

Do people really trust Redis for something like this? I feel like it's sort of pointless to pair Redis with S3 like this, and it'd be better to see benchmarks with metadata stores that can provide actual guarantees for durability/availability. Unfortunately, the benchmarks use Redis. Why would I care about distributed storage on a system like S3, which is all about consistency/durability/availability guarantees, just…

Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to. If you're running Redis right, it's very reliable. Not S3 reliable, though. But if you need S3 reliable, you would turn to something else. I expect that most folks looking at this are doing it because it means: 1. Effectively unbounded storage 2. It's fast 3. It's pretty darn cheap 4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesy…

> 4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesystems

Easy to scale on RDS, along with everything else. But there’s no Kubernetes operator. Is there a better measure of “easy” or “challenging?” IMO no. Perhaps I am spoiled by CNPG.

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#64

Post by staticassertion »

bastawhiz wrote: post #56
staticassertion wrote: post #50

Do people really trust Redis for something like this? I feel like it's sort of pointless to pair Redis with S3 like this, and it'd be better to see benchmarks with metadata stores that can provide actual guarantees for durability/availability. Unfortunately, the benchmarks use Redis. Why would I care about distributed storage on a system like S3, which is all about consistency/durability/availability guarantees, just…

Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to. If you're running Redis right, it's very reliable. Not S3 reliable, though. But if you need S3 reliable, you would turn to something else. I expect that most folks looking at this are doing it because it means: 1. Effectively unbounded storage 2. It's fast 3. It's pretty darn cheap 4. You can scale it horizontally in a way that's challenging to scale other filesy…

> Redis is as reliable as the storage you persist it to.

For a single node, if you tank performance by changing the configuration, sure. Otherwise, no, not really.

I don't get why you'd want a file system that isn't durable, but to each their own.

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#66

Post by daviesliu »

tuhgdetzhh wrote: post #54

If tested various Posix FS projects over the years and everyone has their shortcomings in one way or the other. Although the maintainers of these projects disagree, I mostly consider them as a workaround for smaller projects. For big data (PB range) and critical production workloads I recommend to bite the bullet and make your software nativley S3 compatible without going over a POSIX mounted S3 proxy.

JuiceFS can be scaled to hundreds of PB by design, also is verified by thousands of users in production [1].

[1] https://juicefs.com/en/blog/company/2025-recap-artificial-in...

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#68

Post by satoru42 »

hsn915 wrote: post #67

This is upside down. We need a kernel native distributed file system so that we can build distributed storage/databases on top of it. This is like building an operating system on top of a browser.

Show me an operating system built on top of a browser that can be used to solve real-world problems like JuiceFS.

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#69

Post by ycombinatrix »

staticassertion wrote: post #50

Do people really trust Redis for something like this? I feel like it's sort of pointless to pair Redis with S3 like this, and it'd be better to see benchmarks with metadata stores that can provide actual guarantees for durability/availability. Unfortunately, the benchmarks use Redis. Why would I care about distributed storage on a system like S3, which is all about consistency/durability/availability guarantees, just…

It says MySQL can be used instead of Redis for the metadata

Re: JuiceFS is a distributed POSIX file system built on top of Redis and S3

#70

Post by ycombinatrix »

satoru42 wrote: post #68
hsn915 wrote: post #67

This is upside down. We need a kernel native distributed file system so that we can build distributed storage/databases on top of it. This is like building an operating system on top of a browser.

Show me an operating system built on top of a browser that can be used to solve real-world problems like JuiceFS.

OrbitDB?
Post reply on HN